Clinical and microscopic evaluation of long-term (6 months) epilation effects of the ipulse personal home-use intense pulsed light (IPL) device

Home-based devices in dermatology: a systematic review of safety and efficacy

There is increasing demand for home-based devices for the treatment of dermatologic conditions and cosmesis. Commercially available devices include intense pulsed light, laser diodes, radiofrequency, light-emitting diodes, and ultraviolet B phototherapy. The objective of this report is to evaluate the current evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of home-based devices for the treatment of skin conditions. A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and Cinahl was conducted on November 9, 2020 using PRISMA guidelines. Original research articles that investigated the efficacy and safety of home-based devices for dermatologic use were included. Bibliographies were screened for additional relevant articles. Strength of evidence was graded using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine guidelines. Clinical recommendations were then made based on the quality of the existing literature. After review, 37 clinical trials were included—19 were randomized controlled trials, 16 were case series, and 2 were non-randomized controlled trials. Ultimately, from our analysis, we recommend the home-based use of intense pulsed light for hair removal, laser diodes for androgenic alopecia, low power radiofrequency for rhytides and wrinkles, and light-emitting diodes for acne vulgaris. Trials investigating ultraviolet B phototherapy for psoriasis revealed mixed evidence for home treatments compared to clinic treatments. All devices had favorable safety profiles with few significant adverse events. Limitations to our review include a limited number of randomized controlled trials as well as a lack of data on the long-term efficacy and safety of each device.

Laser Treatment in Hirsutism: An Update

Unwanted hair growth, which is a common aesthetic problem, has traditionally been treated using various techniques such as shaving, waxing, and epilation, but most of these provide only a temporary solution. Laser and light-based technology for hair removal has become one of the fastest growing procedures in modern cosmetic dermatology in the last decade. Clinical experience suggests that in the ideal subject with fair skin and dark hair, laser treatment can reduce hair growth significantly. This article reviews the various laser and light-based devices used for hair removal along with the various laser and patient parameters that affect the outcome of laser treatment for hair removal. Photoepilation, when properly used, offers clear advantages when compared with older, traditional techniques.

Light-based home-use devices for hair removal: Why do they work and how effective they are?

OBJECTIVES

This review has the following objectives: Firstly, it provides an explanation of the evolution of laser/intense pulsed light (IPL) hair reduction modalities from high fluence professional devices to low fluence home-use appliances. Secondly, it summarises published literature reviews on home-use devices (HUDs) as evidence of their growing credibility. Thirdly, it proposes mechanistic differences in light delivery regimes and the resulting divergences in mode of action.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An extensive literature search was performed to review the progress of laser/IPL-induced hair reduction and determine what evidence is available to explain the mode of action of professional and HUDs for hair removal. Establishing the likely biological mode of action of professional high-fluence systems versus home-use low-fluence appliances was performed by combining data obtained using ex vivo hair follicle (HF) organ culture and the clinical results involving human participants.

RESULTS

Significant basic science and clinical evidence has been published to confirm the clinical efficacy and technical safety of many laser and IPL home-use devices for hair removal. Clearly, HUDs are different compared to professional systems both in terms of fluence per pulse and in terms of biological mechanisms underlying hair removal. Here we presented data showing that a single low fluence pulse of both 810 nm laser (6.6 J/cm² , 16 ms) and IPL (9 J/cm² , 15 ms and 6.8 J/cm² , 1.9 ms) leads to induction of catagen transition. Catagen transition was characterized by morphological changes similar to what occurs in vivo with occasional detection of apoptosis in the dermal papilla and outer root sheath cells. This suggests that high hair reduction can be expected in vivo and longer-term treatment might result in HF miniaturization due to a cumulative effect on the dermal papilla and outer root sheath cells. In line with this hypothesis, in this review we demonstrate that long-term application of a commercially-available home-use IPL appliance resulted in persistent hair reduction (80%) one year after last treatment. These data are in line with what was previously reported in the literature, where clinical studies with home-use IPL appliances demonstrated high efficacy of hair reduction on female legs, armpits and bikini zones, with full hair regrowth after four treatments following cessation of IPL administration. Limitations of HUDs include lack of hair clearance for very dark skin types and low speed of treatment compared with professional devices. Numerous uncontrolled and controlled clinical efficacy studies and technical safety investigations on consumer-use appliances support many of the leading manufacturers' claims.

ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS

Manufacturers make consumer appliances safe and easy to use by considering "human factors," needs and capabilities of a variety of users. Safety is of primary concern to manufacturers, regulators and standards bodies as these appliances may be accessible to children or their use attempted on unsuitable skin types without full awareness of potential side effects. Consumer cosmetic appliances are provided with warnings and obvious safety notices describing the nature of any ocular or dermal hazard and precautions for reducing risk of accidental injury, infection, etc. HUDs employing optical energy are provided with design and engineering controls such as safety switches, alarms and sensors to prevent their incorrect operation or eye exposure. In-vivo studies demonstrated that low fluence home-use hair removal devices can result in high hair reduction efficacy after a short treatment regime, while prolonged and less frequent (once in six weeks) maintenance treatment over a year can lead to high and sustained hair reduction even one year after cessation of treatment. Home-use hair removal devices can be a useful adjunct to professional in-office treatments with high professional awareness. There are sufficient positive arguments for practitioners to make the case to patients for HUDs as "companion" products to professional treatments. In addition, devices for hair removal can be used effectively as stand-alone products by the consumer if they are willing to adopt a regime of regular or frequent use. Further clinical studies involving dynamic observation of HF cycle stage and type (terminal vs. vellus) over the total duration of treatment, for example, using biopsies or non-invasive imaging are necessary to confirm the proposed mode of action of low fluence pulses in a combination with treatment and maintenance regimes. Lasers Surg. Med. 51:481-490, 2019. © 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Laser and Light Treatments for Hair Reduction in Fitzpatrick Skin Types IV-VI: A Comprehensive Review of the Literature

Unwanted facial and body hair presents as a common finding in many patients, such as females with hirsutism. With advances in laser and light technology, a clinically significant reduction in hair can be achieved in patients with light skin. However, in patients with darker skin, Fitzpatrick skin types (FST) IV-VI, the higher melanin content of the skin interferes with the proposed mechanism of laser-induced selective photothermolysis, which is to target the melanin in the hair follicle to cause permanent destruction of hair bulge stem cells. Many prospective and retrospective studies have been conducted with laser and light hair-removal devices, but most exclude patients with darkly pigmented skin, considering them a high-risk group for unwanted side effects, including pigmentation changes, blisters, and crust formation. We reviewed the published literature to obtain studies that focused on hair reduction for darker skin types. The existing literature for this patient population identifies longer wavelengths as a key element of the treatment protocol and indicates neodymium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet (Nd:YAG), diode, alexandrite, and ruby lasers as well as certain intense pulsed light sources for safe hair reduction with minimal side effects in patients with FST IV-VI, so long as energy settings and wavelengths are appropriate. Based on the findings in this review, safe and effective hair reduction for patients with FST IV-VI is achievable under proper treatment protocols and energy settings.

Ultraviolet radiation after exposure to a low-fluence IPL home-use device: a randomized clinical trial

The prevailing advice is to avoid sun exposure after intense pulsed light (IPL) hair removal. However, no systematic evaluation of ultraviolet radiation (UVR) after IPL hair removal exits. Therefore, we investigated the occurrence of side effects in subjects receiving solar-simulated UVR after a low-fluence IPL treatment with a home-use device. Sixteen subjects with Fitzpatrick skin types (FST) II-V were enrolled. Three constitutive buttock blocks (4.4 × 6.4 cm) were each subdivided into four sites, randomized to one IPL exposure of 0, 7, 8, or 10 J/cm2 (spectral output 530-1100 nm). Blocks were randomized to no UVR or three standard erythema doses (SEDs) UVR either 30 min or 24 h after IPL. Follow-up visits were 48 h, 1 week, and 4 weeks after IPL. Outcome measures were (i) clinical skin reactions, (ii) reflectance measurements of erythema and pigmentation, and (iii) pain. Subjects with FST II-IV experienced no skin reactions up to 4 weeks after IPL, neither erythema, edema, blisters, crusting, textual, nor pigment changes. Reflectance confirmed no change in erythema and pigmentation (p ≥ 0.090). UVR exposure induced erythema and increased pigmentation. The combination of IPL and UVR induced skin reactions not different to responses from UVR (IPL-UVR vs. UVR, p ≥ 0.164). Pain was generally low (median 1, range 0-4) and correlated positively with fluence and pigmentation (Spearman's rho ≥ 0.394, p < 0.001). One subject with FST V experienced perifollicular hyperpigmentation after IPL and slightly more intense when exposed to UVR. A single UVR exposure of three SEDs either shortly or 1 day after low-fluence IPL causes no amplification of skin responses in constitutive skin of individuals with FST II-IV.

Trial of human laser epilation technology for permanent wool removal in Merino sheep

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether human laser epilation technology can permanently prevent wool growth in sheep.

DESIGN

An observational study.

METHODS

Two commercial human epilation lasers (Sharplan alexandrite 755 nm laser, and Lumenis LightSheer 800 nm diode laser) were tested at energies between 10 and 100 J/cm2 and pulse widths from 2 to 400 ms. Wool was clipped from flank, breech, pizzle and around the eyes of superfine Merino sheep with Oster clippers. After initial laser removal of residual wool to reveal bare skin, individual skin sites were treated with up to 15 cycles of laser irradiation. Behavioural responses during treatment, skin temperature immediately after treatment and skin and wool responses for 3 months after treatment were monitored.

RESULTS

A clear transudate was evident on the skin surface within minutes. A dry superficial scab developed by 24 h and remained adherent for at least 6 weeks. When scabs were shed, there was evidence of scarring at sites receiving multiple treatment cycles and normal wool growth in unscarred skin. There was no evidence of laser energy level or pulse width affecting the response of skin and wool to treatment and no evidence of permanent inhibition of wool growth by laser treatment. Laser treatment was well tolerated by the sheep.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment of woolled skin with laser parameters that induce epilation by selective photothermolysis in humans failed to induce permanent inhibition of wool growth in sheep. Absence of melanin in wool may have contributed to the result.